He's saying, "Hey developers that use Linux. Try doing the *the same thing* you do on Linux within the new Bash on Ubuntu on Windows project.

There is no "new BASH." There is only one BASH, and you get it from Gnu.org. What they've got is MASH (Microsoft Adulterated SHell), which is a fork of BASH. Now, maybe Microsoft can find some success with their forked project and, seriously, good luck to 'em. But, seeing as how the current state of the law is that APIs are copyrightable, many of us don't see the value of contributing to a project whose benefits will accrue only to Windows, particularly given Microsoft's malicious stance toward Open Source/Free Software over the past 20 years.

ewhac writes: After news broke of Russian hackers infiltrating the Democratic National Committee's servers, malware researchers decided to see if other politically-motivated intrusions were taking place. Among others, they monitored DNS traffic relating to the Trump Organization, looking for evidence of intrusion. Instead, they discovered traffic from Russia that did not match the patterns typical of malware or botnets. Rather, the patterns looked like ordinary human-driven traffic, as one might expect from email being exchanged between servers — specifically, from servers operated by Russia's Alfa Bank. Further, Trump's server only accepted connections from a limited number of IP addresses. Even more curious, when the malware researchers reached out to Alfa Bank to inquire about the unusual traffic, but before speaking to the Trump campaign, the DNS entry for Trump's server was clumsily deleted. As one researcher put it, "The knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York." Four days later, the Trump Organization registered a new DNS name for the same server; the first DNS lookup for that name came from Alfa Bank in Russia. While the evidence is not conclusive, it is undeniably suggestive that Trump has more than just an "arms-length" relationship with Russia, and warrants further investigation.

I live on the San Francisco peninsula. Google, Facebook, NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Hewlett/Packard, NASA Ames... They're all within 20 minutes drive of each other.

...And I can't get better than 50Mb/sec.

"But Comcast has..." (*SMACK*) I will not let Comcast be my ISP, for reasons which should be obvious by now to every member of this site.

The weird thing is that, about a year ago, a truck from HP Communications (no relation) strung fiber up around my residential neighborhood, allegedly on behalf of AboveNet (now part of Zayo). Since then, however, not a peep out of anyone even hinting at a residential fiber service offering.

Actually, they didn't remove the ESC key, but they relocated it, and did several other gibberingly insane things as well. It was a fscking disaster. Gen-3 restored the keyboard to sanity, and is quite a decent machine.

In that case, the officer was (a) in a home and (b) did not have the homeowner's permission to take hold of anything. The home is what ramped the protections up to the max; the fact the homeowner did not consent to anything kept those protections in force.

It's much different from the driver of a car giving evidence directly to a cop. The protections were lesser, and the driver waived them.

Please, go read the opinion again. Particularly read Scalia's opinion, where he lays out the reasons why an infrared camera is an illegal search of a home. It has to do with the fact the home is the bastion of the Fourth Amendment. There is literally nowhere that receives more Fourth Amendment protections than the home.

A set of blank cards, which someone voluntarily gives to the police, receives far less protection. If a cop asks me for a birthday card I'm holding, and I voluntarily hand it over, and the cop opens it up and finds I've tucked a baggie containing bump of cocaine inside, has the cop committed an illegal search? Under your logic, yes, since the bump wasn't in plain sight.

But the plain sight exception does not apply when the police have lawful possession of the evidence!

Alice and Bob are driving down the road when they're pulled over by cops. Alice is driving. Bob gets arrested on an outstanding warrant. As Bob's getting out of the car, the cops see a black plastic bag underneath Bob's seat. They ask Alice about the bag. She says, "This? Oh, it's just oregano, officers. A lot of oregano. No, we don't have receipts for it, and, uh, we bought it at... err, from some guy. But it's just oregano. See?", and gives it to the cop. The cop, upon opening the baggie, sees what looks like oregano. But the volume of the oregano is much more than you'd need for a pizza, so the cop figures it might be marijuana and decides to run a field test on it. Ultimately this field test is turned over to the State Police, which are able to conclusively say it's marijuana. Bob is now facing marijuana possession charges and complains his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

That's exactly what happened here. The defendant was arrested on an outstanding warrant, the arresting officer asked what was in the bag, the driver gave the bag over and said he and the defendant bought 143 gift cards from "someone", but couldn't identify whom, nor provide any receipts, and their business plan was to "resell" these cards for a profit. Put all that together and it's on the same level as telling the cop your weed is oregano -- it's a lie that's completely transparent.

Since the cops were given the evidence, they did not seize it illegally. Since the cops had an incriminating statement from one of the participants, they had probable cause to check for illegality. Legal seizure plus probable cause equals go directly to jail, do not collect a $200 gift card.

This Slashdot headline is misleading to the point of being journalistic malpractice.

DETAILS:
In your fallacious example, you attempt to conflate an activity with a state of being. You cannot ban a black person for being black. Likewise, you cannot ban a smoker for being a smoker. However, you can ban the activity of smoking in your venue.

This is what makes Sundar Pichai's tweet especially puzzling. When Steve Jobs passed away, Google gave over its home page to a memorial, with a link to a page on Apple's Web site. There wasn't even a discussion on whether this was appropriate; it was simply done, because of course it should be done.

A week later, DMR passes, who was arguably a greater contributor than Jobs, yet no memorial appeared on Google's home page. One of the excuses given was that potential destinations for a memorial link wouldn't be able to handle the traffic. Even after being called on it during a company meeting, Google management remained unswayed.

I thought their handling of the affair was rather ad-hoc and sloppy -- not in line with the company's image at all.

You do realize, of course, that there exists an entire "industry" devoted to manipulating automated search systems to push snake oil and all manner of other bullshit in to your face. Once you remove the human element to identify and remove the obvious garbage, what you're left with is what the armies of trolls are furiously clicking on throughout the night.

I just spent the last ten minutes crawling around AT&T's site looking for a concrete statement concerning available bandwidth, and came up empty. Their "Check Availability" page talks only about download speeds. Further, they are careful to say, "up to 1Gb/sec," which is code for, "You will not actually ever receive 1Gb/sec."

I can't find any page that discusses upload speeds, which are almost certainly crap.